[RFC PATCH v2 15/26] of/fdt: Introduce early_init_dt_add_memory_hyp()

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 8:26 AM Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 12 Jan 2021 at 08:10:47 (-0600), Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:51 AM Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 Jan 2021 at 08:45:10 (-0600), Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:16 AM Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Introduce early_init_dt_add_memory_hyp() to allow KVM to conserve a copy
> > > > > of the memory regions parsed from DT. This will be needed in the context
> > > > > of the protected nVHE feature of KVM/arm64 where the code running at EL2
> > > > > will be cleanly separated from the host kernel during boot, and will
> > > > > need its own representation of memory.
> > > >
> > > > What happened to doing this with memblock?
> > >
> > > I gave it a go, but as mentioned in v1, I ran into issues for nomap
> > > regions. I want the hypervisor to know about these memory regions (it's
> > > possible some of those will be given to protected guests for instance)
> > > but these seem to be entirely removed from the memblocks when using DT:
> > >
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/of/fdt.c#L1153
> > >
> > > EFI appears to do things differently, though, as it 'just' uses
> > > memblock_mark_nomap() instead of actively removing the memblock. And that
> > > means I could actually use the memblock API for EFI, but I'd rather
> > > have a common solution. I tried to understand why things are done
> > > differently but couldn't find an answer and kept things simple and
> > > working for now.
> > >
> > > Is there a good reason for not using memblock_mark_nomap() with DT? If
> > > not, I'm happy to try that.
> >
> > There were 2 patches to do that, but it never got resolved. See here[1].
>
> Thanks. So the DT stuff predates the introduction of memblock_mark_nomap,
> that's why...
>
> By reading the discussions, [1] still looks a sensible patch on its own,
> independently from the issue Nicolas tried to solve. Any reason for not
> applying it?

As I mentioned in the thread, same patch with 2 different reasons. So
I just wanted a better commit message covering both.

Rob